Open Stack

On 02/15/2015 01:13 PM, Brian Rosmaita wrote:
> On 2/15/15, 10:10 AM, "Jay Pipes" <jaypipes at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 02/15/2015 01:31 AM, Brian Rosmaita wrote:
>>> This is a follow-up to the discussion at the 12 February API-WG
>>> meeting [1] concerning "functional" API in Glance [2].  We made
>>> some progress, but need to close this off so the spec can be
>>> implemented in Kilo.
>>>
>>> I believe this is where we left off: 1. The general consensus was
>>> that POST is the correct verb.
>>
>> Yes, POST is correct (though the resource is wrong).
>>
>>> 2. Did not agree on what to POST.  Three options are in play: (A)
>>> POST /images/{image_id}?action=deactivate POST
>>> /images/{image_id}?action=reactivate
>>>
>>> (B) POST /images/{image_id}/actions with payload describing the
>>> action, e.g., { "action": "deactivate" } { "action": "reactivate"
>>> }
>>>
>>> (C) POST /images/{image_id}/actions/deactivate POST
>>> /images/{image_id}/actions/reactivate
>>
>> d) POST /images/{image_id}/tasks with payload: { "action":
>> "deactivate|activate" }
>>
>> An action isn't created. An action is taken. A task is created. A
>> task contains instructions on what action to take.
>
> The Images API v2 already has tasks (schema available at
> /v2/schemas/tasks ), which are used for long-running asynchronous
> operations (right now, image import and image export).  I think we
> want to keep those distinct from what we're talking about here.
>
> Does something really need to be created for this call?  The idea
> behind the "functional" API was to have a place for things that don't
> fit neatly into the CRUD-centric paradigm.  Option (C) seems like a
> good fit for this.

Why not just use the existing tasks/ interface, then? :) Seems like a 
perfect fit to me.

Best,
-jay